F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[On Guard for Thee]

The S-92 was developed as a civilian helicopter, since the Blackhawk/Seahawk family wasn't certified for civil aviation...none the less, its a robust design. The issue was the underpowered engine, which was to be rectified by Sikorsky and GE in developing the new Marine 1 replacement (The Sea Kings that transport the President), in fairness to both our previous Governments and Sikorsky/GE, they couldn't have foreseen the Obama administration cancelling the program on entering office.

And its not an argument for a mature platform, but a platform in which we won't be stuck with additional development costs outside a fixed amount we agree to pay........like the F-35.

The 92 was plagued with almost as many snags as the 76 was (we in the business call it Igor's bastard child). but after a legth process the 92 has worked itself into a place in the offshore oil business. Now, did you ever figure out where that engine is located in the jetranger?

[Wilber]

The H-92 was put forward by Sikorsky. The product hasn't yet proven itself so it isn't likely to get many buyers for a while.

Still, there's this opinion of the product:

"The helicopter they've got now is going to be the best anywhere in the world. The software part isn't complete … but the air frame, controls, deck, pilot consoles and all that stuff is state of the art," Ken Hansen said Friday.

Hansen, former co-chair of the Maritime Studies Programme at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ont., said the Cyclones are "significantly better" than the Sea Kings they will replace. "They have a lot more power range, endurance and cabin space."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/ch-148-cyclones-delivered-to-halifax-airbase-1.3119737

Faint praise. I should hope they are better than the Sea Kings they replace, they are 50 years newer. Other than the fact they aren't amphibious of course.

How many other people have shown interest in it? Even if some others eventually do, we will have paid for all the development and testing for them. Real smart. Real cost effective. As of last year we are into an original 2.8 billion contract to the tune of around 7.5 billion. Brilliant.

[Derek 2.0]

How many other people have shown interest in it? Even if some others eventually do, we will have paid for all the development and testing for them. Real smart. Real cost effective. As of last year we are into an original 2.8 billion contract to the tune of around 7.5 billion. Brilliant.

Aside from the USN/USMC, the USAF is looking at it as a replacement for it's Jolly Green Giant CSAR fleet. But as a maritime helicopter, with Sikorsky now owned by Lockheed, and Lockheed's new relationship with Mitsubishi (born out of the F-35 program), there is a better than even chance that the S/H-92 could end up replacing a good portion, upwards of 50-60, of Japan's older SeaHawks.......

[Rue]

The Gripen, Gryphen, however its spelled, the Swedish fighter now used by Brazil makes the most cents and sense for Canada. it only requires a 5 man crew and a pick up truck. All amnmunition is transferable from the current F18's to it. It can land on ice and on very small space.

it is the cheapest to maintain and buy. i have championed it on this forum to the point I have been accused of being a swedish lobbyist.

Canada needs air interceptors. If there was a major dog fight, the US AirForce would send F22 Raptors which the US wil not sell to anyone. Under NORAD the US Air Force would take the lead combat role if the soviets did invade and it would be the F22 Raptor not clunky, slow, blind-spotted F35 in an air war with SU35.

If the F35 is so good why the F22, hmmmmm./ Please an upgraded F18 is as good as this clunker of an f35.

wee won't buy Raafale-Typhoon-Mirage latest generation due to money.

Now You can get 125-50 gripens for 60 F35's which need a crew on the ground of at least 20, require far more maintenance time, consume more petrol, on and on and on.

if we were looking for the best fit we would have chosen the Gripen long ago and sweden offered to build the jet in Canada.

The problem is the lobbyists and military industrial complex network behind the F35 has far more power and influence on Canada MP's than the Swedish.

Now that the Tory's are out, the entire F35 lobby has lost its Tory power base.

i think as one poster said, during Trudeau's first 4 years, you will only see spending cuts to the Defence. Trudeau lives in a fantasy world where the only need he has for military is to hand out winter coats and drinking water.

I doubt you will see any major expenditures on the military. it goes against his fantasy world scenario where we hug each other.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Rue

[Smallc]

Trudeau ha promises not to cut defence. It was point #2 in Minister Sajjin's mandate letter to maintain current spending levels including current increases. Any talk otherwise is completely unfounded at this point.

[Wilber]

Aside from the USN/USMC, the USAF is looking at it as a replacement for it's Jolly Green Giant CSAR fleet. But as a maritime helicopter, with Sikorsky now owned by Lockheed, and Lockheed's new relationship with Mitsubishi (born out of the F-35 program), there is a better than even chance that the S/H-92 could end up replacing a good portion, upwards of 50-60, of Japan's older SeaHawks.......

That might be great for Lockheed and Sikorsky if it happens but there will be nothing in it for Canada, other than no longer being solely responsible for the support, development and upgrades 28 unique helicopters will require during their lifetime.

[Derek 2.0]

That might be great for Lockheed and Sikorsky if it happens but there will be nothing in it for Canada, other than no longer being solely responsible for the support, development and upgrades 28 unique helicopters will require during their lifetime.

No doubt, but any long term structural/engineering upgrades to the helicopter could be shared among other users........but that can't be said about us replacing the Hornets with an aircraft that will be retired decades previous by its primary users.

[Wilber]

No doubt, but any long term structural/engineering upgrades to the helicopter could be shared among other users........but that can't be said about us replacing the Hornets with an aircraft that will be retired decades previous by its primary users.

If there turn out to be other users, after paying Sikorsky to develop a new product they can sell to other users. Otherwise, we are on our own with this thing.

[Wilber]

The Gripen, Gryphen, however its spelled, the Swedish fighter now used by Brazil makes the most cents and sense for Canada. it only requires a 5 man crew and a pick up truck. All amnmunition is transferable from the current F18's to it. It can land on ice and on very small space.

it is the cheapest to maintain and buy. i have championed it on this forum to the point I have been accused of being a swedish lobbyist.

The Gripen may be a fine aircraft but if you listen to the F-35 detractors, it won't cut it because it has only one engine. It also has only 2/3 the F-35A's range on internal fuel.

[Derek 2.0]

If there turn out to be other users, after paying Sikorsky to develop a new product they can sell to other users. Otherwise, we are on our own with this thing.

Yup, as we will be with a 4 generation fighter in the 2040-2060 time frame.

[Wilber]

Yup, as we will be with a 4 generation fighter in the 2040-2060 time frame.

Quite possibly.

[segnosaur]

Now You can get 125-50 gripens for 60 F35's

The Gripen, Gryphen, however its spelled, the Swedish fighter now used by Brazil makes the most cents and sense for Canada. it only requires a 5 man crew and a pick up truck. All amnmunition is transferable from the current F18's to it. It can land on ice and on very small space.

The Gripen may be a fine aircraft but if you listen to the F-35 detractors, it won't cut it because it has only one engine. It also has only 2/3 the F-35A's range on internal fuel.

It also has (from what I've seen) a smaller payload than the F35, as well as a lower ceiling of operations. And, even if weapons from our CF18s can also be used on the Gripens, there appears to be additional weapons that the F35 can carry that the Gripen cannot.

Now, there are several specialized aspects of the F35 that have been built in right from the start: stealth (which may or may not be relevant, depending on what we use the planes for), and the advanced avionics and sensors (which are more important, given the way we jointly run exercises with other NATO countries.) Not sure if the Gripen has those types of electronics or they would have to be add-ons.

Oh, and I don't know why the earlier poster was suggesting we could get 125 Gripens for the cost of 60 F35s. According to Wikipedia, the flyaway cost of a Gripen is ~69 million. When the F35 reaches full production, the cost should be ~85 million. Yeah, the F35 would be a bit more pricey, but it will be nowhere near double the cost that was suggested.

[Derek 2.0]

Oh, and I don't know why the earlier poster was suggesting we could get 125 Gripens for the cost of 60 F35s. According to Wikipedia, the flyaway cost of a Gripen is ~69 million. When the F35 reaches full production, the cost should be ~85 million. Yeah, the F35 would be a bit more pricey, but it will be nowhere near double the cost that was suggested.

Actually, as I cited in this thread, the Norwegian Government found that an equal number of Gripen NG aircraft would cost more than the same number of F-35As.

[Smallc]

Typhoon extended until at least 2040:

http://gizmodo.com/all-the-military-gear-the-uks-buying-on-its-defense-spe-1744151134?sidebar_promotions_icons=testingoff&utm_expid=66866090-67.e9PWeE2DSnKObFD7vNEoqg.1&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2F

[Wilber]

Typhoon extended until at least 2040:

http://gizmodo.com/all-the-military-gear-the-uks-buying-on-its-defense-spe-1744151134?sidebar_promotions_icons=testingoff&utm_expid=66866090-67.e9PWeE2DSnKObFD7vNEoqg.1&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2F

So, assuming that if we could even get them by 2020, the Brits will be taking them out of service 20 years after we put them into service. If we run the F-18's all the way to 2025, it will be 15 years.

Maybe instead of looking at the Typhoon, we should be looking at its replacement.

[Smallc]

So, assuming that if we could even get them by 2020, the Brits will be taking them out of service 20 years after we put them into service.

That's not an assurance at this point. The trend the world over seems to be making fighters last longer and longer. The idea that it's suddenly going to change, given increasing costs is....

[Wilber]

That's not an assurance at this point. The trend the world over seems to be making fighters last longer and longer. The idea that it's suddenly going to change, given increasing costs is....

Maybe, but we are comparing aircraft that are already half way through their intended lifespans and having them extended, to one which is just going into service. We won't be saving money, just kicking the cost down the road.

[Smallc]

Maybe, but we are comparing aircraft that are already half way through their intended lifespans and having them extended, to one which is just going into service. We won't be saving money, just kicking the cost down the road.

What I'm trying to say is, the replacement projects and timelines that Derek laid out aren't realistic. Besides that, the Typhoon is too expensive for our needs. It's more likely either the Super Hornet or on an outside chance, the Super Viper (if LM were to offer it).

[Wilber]

So upgraded versions of an aircraft we already have and one that lost out in a competition to it.

[Derek 2.0]

Typhoon extended until at least 2040:

http://gizmodo.com/all-the-military-gear-the-uks-buying-on-its-defense-spe-1744151134?sidebar_promotions_icons=testingoff&utm_expid=66866090-67.e9PWeE2DSnKObFD7vNEoqg.1&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2F

So? The (British) Tories will retain two squadrons worth of (low hour) Typhoons they were to retire, upgraded so they can replace the (70s era) Tornado.......work to be done (retaining BAE jobs) and to be based at RAF Coningsby (now keeping upwards of 1000 RAF personal that were to be sacked) all in Lincolnshire, a Tory bastion, no different than Atlantic Canada or Alberta for the Liberals and Tories here.

What you failed to mention, the MoD will double it's investment in their UCAV program (that will partially replace their Typhoons in the 2030s), in addition, they are near tripling the initial introduction of the F-35s, creating (more restoring) the RN FAA squadrons, and ensuring F-35 centric air wing for both carriers.

Of course, an out of service date of 2040, and a purchase price more than that of the F-35, maters little since we will require aircraft outwards of 2060 and cheaper than the F-35......might as well be free, since there is zero money budgeted for new fighters prior to 2020.

[Smallc]

So upgraded versions of an aircraft we already have and one that lost out in a competition to it.

The newest versions of both, the latter of which is projected to be operating into at least the 2050s. The F-16V is not the same as the one we rejected.

The Super Hornet is almost a completely different aircraft than the Hornet.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

What I'm trying to say is, the replacement projects and timelines that Derek laid out aren't realistic. Besides that, the Typhoon is too expensive for our needs. It's more likely either the Super Hornet or on an outside chance, the Super Viper (if LM were to offer it).

Well you're not disproving that, as the RAF upgrading a portion of the aircraft, to be retired early, will naturally extend the service life of the entire force...........of course, what you fail to (understand?) mention, is this has little to do timelines on a replacement aircraft, but more so, other far larger procurement programs that will drain the procurement budget in said time frame.........namely the replacement of the deterrent, which will dwarf our shipbuilding and fighter replacement program combined.

[Derek 2.0]

So upgraded versions of an aircraft we already have and one that lost out in a competition to it.

Exactly, both aircraft with their roots in the 1970s, to be operated out to the 2060s.......none the less:

The Pentagon expects the new Canadian government to allow Lockheed Martin Corp's LMT.N F-35 fighter aircraft to compete to replace Canada's aging CF-18 jets, despite the Liberal Party's stated opposition to the planes, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work said on Saturday.

None the less, the US Government gets the final say on any American aircraft sold to Canada, or aircraft containing US produced parts.....

Edited November 23, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[Smallc]

Sweetman noted that F-15s and F-16s are now expected to serve until 2045. In addition, plans to modernize F-16s with active electronically scanned array radars and other improvements are being revived, he wrote.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/delays-in-f-35-project-could-mean-more-orders-for-f-15s-and-f-16s

And probably longer.

[Derek 2.0]

Sweetman noted that F-15s and F-16s are now expected to serve until 2045. In addition, plans to modernize F-16s with active electronically scanned array radars and other improvements are being revived, he wrote.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/delays-in-f-35-project-could-mean-more-orders-for-f-15s-and-f-16s

And probably longer.

Bill Sweetman lost all credibility with his UFO/Area 51 mantra years ago.........he'd might as well suggest the USAF will be operating x-wings to contend with Russian tie-fighters.....

What he is confused over (in his actual article at aviation week), also suggesting the USAF might consider a purchase of Super Hornets (which is laughable), is an ongoing USAF program to incorporate portions of the Growler's EW suite into current F-16 Wild Weasels (operated by the South Carolina ANG), with the debate being value, in that it might be cheaper to replace said F-16s versus upgrading them in the interim, until they are replaced by the F-35 in the 2030s.

Likewise, a USAF study to replace a portion of its F-15C fleet (versus upgrading them) with the latest variant of the F-15 Strike Eagle (that will serve into the 2040s), what Israel now also wants in addition to the F-35, and incorporating said portion of the Growler's EW suite into them (verses the F-16).

In neither case will the USAF be operating either aircraft into the 2060s, likewise the latest F-15 costs more than the F-35 (and is not fully developed) and we won't purchase the F-16 because they have "a single engine and can't operate in the Arctic"...........and of course, our Government has no money budgeted for either.............next

Edited November 23, 2015 by Derek 2.0